Pritti Patel

With respect your wrong.

I never suggested anything, you assumed.
That line I put could have meant I thought why was the Prime Minister not paid more, it could have meant anything.
Some people took the time to answer that question with the point of how and why, which shows you assumed as they read it different.

You brought Football into it, if you had said a banker , my answer would have been the same, it’s a private sector.

My reasoning for that response (which I accept might be wrong) is that I was under the impression Government based jobs are banded(may not be right word), so the wages are set somehow, whereas a private firm can pay anything they want.

 

The minimum wage for the plebs like us,

 

Indeed

 

They are indeed ‘banded’ but they still have to be attractive enough to attract people with the requisite skills. Ergo; they compete in the market.

And like I said; well over a hundred thousand staff, billions of budget, the responsibility for the whole police, immigration and intelligence services. I’d suggest £150k is undervalued.

I brought football into it because we all know that our club aren’t exactly big spenders, and we (the fans) would be happy to pay a 26 yr old who didn’t do his A levels about 4 or 5 times the amount that appears to be upsetting you here.

So; stop telling me what I’m wrong about, and tell me what you think a Perm Sec in a primary govt dept should get paid?

 

This is a massive payout, totally against usual Civil Service standards. They've paid to keep him silent, and trust me if half of what I've heard is true then they didn't want this at ET. Mrs May did the same with the head of UKBA (as it was then, a few years back).

The most corrupt set you'll ever meet, but folk vote for em.

See the regional budgets aren't being used as a corrupt game of politics....but Corbyn, but remoaners, but snowflakes, but communism, but Megan, but mooooslims, but asylum seekers, but blue passports, but fish, but sovereignty innit! Love the Queen!

 

I’ve already answered the question haven’t I?

 

Honestly?
I’ve looked through your posts and can’t see an answer to my question

it’s a simple question that requires an answer in £s.

You appear to have a view that in the private sector people can have limitless pay because it’s up to the employer (it’s actually down to the market but hey ho).

And in the private sector, you’ve fallen for the daily Mail tag (more than the prime minister) but when asked to think about the actual responsibility of the job under discussion, and how that might fit in the market, you want to shy away from answering.
Simple question:
Permanent Secretary
Almost 200,000 staff
Responsible for the Police, fire service, immigration and the security services

operational budget of billions of £s.

What’s that really worth?

 

Couldn’t have looked very hard then could you?
First time you asked I answered with

I haven’t got a clue, I just said I thought it was odd he was on very similar to a Prime Minister.
Some people politely replied with reasons why, but you have decided to try to make something more about a simple question, why?

Perhaps instead of making things up you should concentrate on what is written?
Youve now accused me of saying he was on more than a PM, which I didn’t.
I’ve never said the private sector can pay limitless amounts
I’ve never said I have an issue with his specific salary.

So to recap to make it easier for you:

I asked why is the salary similar to a PM - people have answered this, I don’t think there’s much more to add to that question.
That leaves Private sector are free to pay what they wish and aren’t governed by same restrictions as Government (banding etc) - you’ve confirmed this is correct in a previous post
You asked me what do I think the role is worth - I’ve answered twice now I don’t know.

 

I just find it really odd that people can vocalise a ‘reaction’ but are incapable of actually considering the facts and justifying it (or indeed, changing their mind and realising their reaction may be driven by unsavoury influence).

But if you neither have a clue or are prepared to consider it worthy of thought, that’s fair enough

 

Ive said I don’t have a clue what the role is worth, that’s because I don’t know what the job actually entails and what is his day to day remit.
Suppose you would have been happier that instead of being honest I should have guessed?

Have you ever considered perhaps that’s why people ask questions to try to gain answers?

Perhaps consider this, if your original answer had been along the lines of ‘it’s value for money because .........’ , instead of then proceeding to make things up?

I also find it amazing that someone can assume (wrongly) something after reading a text and then have that pointed out politely, continue to not listen and make things up, instead of accepting they have misunderstood.
Which of course is not a reflection on the person but as we all know an easy thing to do.

Perhaps you should consider your first paragraph as once again despite me telling you I asked a question, nothing more nothing less, you continue with the insinuation that I am a liar.

But hey if it fits an agenda by trying to suggest unfairly about people’s comments and thoughts you crack on.

 

The Prime Minister and MPs aren't paid anywhere near enough for the responsibility they have, but if they were given the right amount they have to be a lot more professional, and ideally shouldn't be allowed to have any external sources of income.

 

It might have been simpler for you not to comment as you ‘don’t have a clue’.

But there we are. In the modern world is easier to just copy the mock outrage of the Daily Mail than to actually ‘think’. And presumably hope that no one ever questions that outrage.

 

This ought to be obvious, pay MP’s the going rate but insist there’s absolutely no other income source. (I appreciate it’s impossible to police a spouses income etc)

Though when it comes to what the PM ‘earns’, the total remuneration far exceeds his ‘salary’.

 

You are just getting embarrassingly funny now.
You have been repeatedly told it was a question why, others explained why, I accepted their responses on face value.
Perhaps you believe people should not ask questions?

I even agreed with your initial response about a Footballers wages.
You refuse to accept that why?
You have not despite being asked repeatedly being asked to point to evidence why?
I don’t believe it’s that you’re too thick, so is it arrogance?
Why do you continue to make things up to try to ‘win’.
Why have you reverted to insinuations over someone’s character to try to ‘win’?

 

Genuinely

I found it difficult to believe than a grown up in the U.K. is unfamiliar with the common trope ‘earns more than the Prime Minister’, often aimed as a sideways attack on someone undeserving (usually but not always in the public sector).

But if you’re sticking to that; I sincerely apologise, nowt more to say